It’s called “restoration of civil rights” or something like that. What can or can’t be restored and under what conditions varies from state to state. So it already exists.
The problem with allowing felons - violent or not - to own weapons is that they have already demonstrated they have problems following the rules. Personally, if after a sufficient period of time (let’s say 20 years) they’ve stayed out of trouble and followed the law I’m open to full restoration of rights but, let’s say, six months out of prison? Nope. You have to show you can behave long term.
Oh, bullshit. (Yes, I know I’ve said that before. True again.) You’re defending a particular interpretation of the Constitution. Was the assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional? No, it wasn’t. At that time, there was no reason to think it would have been. Now, things have changed a bit, but that’s due to the composition of the Supreme Court, not due to the clear and unambiguous wording of the Constitution. That composition will change again.
So bunches of random people should die because of your favored interpretation of the Constitution.
Yes, I think that’s immoral as all get out. Evil, actually.
How many deaths are less important than your interpretation of the Constitution? How many deaths will it take 'til you know that too many people have died? (We’re way past forty-two, fwiw. :()
Also, whatever happened to “the Constitution is not a suicide pact”? You’ve turned it into one.
So many shootings these days that that’s some other year’s debate. :mad:
Those who would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of others, to purchase a bit of extra freedom for themselves…yeah, I’m sure old Ben would have been on board with that. :mad:
All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, and for most purposes- all handguns. They went way further than a "assault weapons " ban.
And there is much disagreement and conflicting studies on whether or not it worked:
Multiple studies have been conducted by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH). In 2006 they reported a lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, they found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[74] Subsequently, they compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.[nb 1] The authors conclude that “if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia then New Zealand would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[4] In 2012, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide…A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of University of Melbourne and La Trobe University studied the data and concluded “the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”[3]
Take a look at the picture here: you dont see any AR15s or anything like that. Mostly .22 rifles and hunting weapons.
*Neither of those kinds of deaths actually fell in Australia as a result of the National Firearms Agreement, researchers reported Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health.
“Many claims have been made about the NFA’s far-reaching effects and its potential benefits if implemented in the United States,” wrote Stuart Gilmour, a statistician at St. Luke’s International University in Tokyo, and his coauthors from the University of Tokyo. “However, more detailed analysis of the law shows that it likely had a negligible effect on firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect.”*
To be fair, other studies disagree. But that fact is- whether or not Australians wide ranging gun ban had any significant effect is debatable. And they banned far more than just AR15s.
Except that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Simply your opinion. You think we should wipe our asses with the Bill of Rights so that you, personally can feel more safe.
There is no evidence at all that any gun control laws in the USA ever reduced violent crime by any significant amount. None. Zip. Zero. You are just hoping they might.
This quote gets trotted out a lot by people who want to justify preserving what they perceive to be entitled freedoms at the sacrifice of the safety and well-being of society at large. First, there is no particular reason to hold sacred every word that was uttered by Ben Franklin. Great guy, but let’s not get religious about it. Second, the context of the quote is not about individual freedoms (and certainly not about the second amendment). He was advocating to the governor as a member of the Assembly to tax the Penn family to raise funds for the French and Indian War. The governor was trying to do a roundabout deal where the Penn family would provide funds but not give the Assembly the authority to levy taxes. Essentially Franklin did not want the Assembly’s liberty as a taxing authority to be sold even though those funds would be used for security.
I’m sure if you actually cared, a search of my posting history would show numerous times where I agree that people now should be allowed to own guns due to the 2nd Amendment. I mostly mock those people.
Saying this gives you little leeway to yell 2nd Amendment! when someone wants to qualify the right to bear arms to exclude various types of guns from that right.
Also, your views on limiting the Constitutional rights of convicted felons is repugnant to me. Which other rights should they lose? Illegal search and seizure? Freedom of religion?
SCOTUS made it clear in Heller that 2nd Ad rights are not absolute. Indeed the right to own Machine Guns is not covered under the 2nd. I would suspect that a well crafted anti-assault weapon law is legit under the 2nd also- several states have such, and those laws have been challenged in the courts but I believe SCOTUS has refused certiorari. That hasn’t stopped me from saying assault weapon bans are stupid and useless.
So, no, I dont *yell 2nd Amendment! *when some guns are excluded. But when the exclusion is broad, I, just like the Supreme Court, do say it is a enfingement .
What’s my opinion? That the people killed at Las Vegas or Parlkland or at Thousand Oaks or at the synagogue in Squirrel Hill are dead?
The assorted coroners seemed pretty sure about it.
“You think we should wipe our asses with your particular interpetation of the Bill of Rights” - FTFY.
Feel? I want to wipe my ass with your particular interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is beyond what even this court has committed itself to, so that other people may continue to feel. Those who are already six feet under, can’t.
Actually, there’s a great deal of evidence that tough gun laws in Massachusetts and California have reduced gun deaths there.
And since I’m the guy who finally lives up to your accusation that we’re all “gun grabbers,” (what are you going to call me now, bucko? You’ve used it up! :D) then yes, I believe that if all the semi-autos were scooped up, it would make quite a dent in these mass killings.
Well, great! But I’m not asking about the Supreme Court. I already know what they said. I am asking you what YOUR opinion is. Unless your opinion is “Whatever the Supreme Court says.”
Besides, according to this site, there are 19 million people with a felony record. 19 million people that you think it is okay that they be denied their 2nd Amendment rights. And you don’t think that is a “broad” exclusion? Strange.
California ranks right in the middle of the states by Homicide rate, so no. Mass is not in the top ten lowest, so again no.
The state with the Lowest homicide rate is NH, rated “F” by Giffords Gun law scorecard. ND ranks 2nd lowest , also a F. Maine is third- also a F. Idaho is 4th- also F. Maryland has the 4th highest murder rate and rates a A. So, no, no, no, and no.
Sure, a small dent- and you’d have to scoop up *half the guns in the USA. * 150 Million guns. I have already shown how absolutely ridiculous that idea is. :rolleyes:
Well, my point is I find it strange that you are against “broad” exclusions to the 2nd Amendment but yet find nothing wrong with excluding 19 million Americans from their 2nd Amendment rights.
Like I said - strange. I would find it just as strange if you said “I don’t think the 19 million people with a felony conviction should be able to exercise their 5th Amendment rights”
